JThunder, an inability to pay does not indicate a lack of willingness to pay.
Since Berdollos isn’t answering questions, I guess I’ll just give my serious answer.
Yes, a human life is more precious than a horse’s. “In the eyes of God” is a meaningless way of viewing it, since we can’t ascertain what value God places on life or even say if such a being exists.
There is no such thing as inherent or intrinsic value. Things only have value relative to other things.
The value of a human life is relative to all the other lives it touches, but that has nothing to do with its value as far as you are concerned.
The value of a human life is relative to you.
John Donne said it, IIRC
The value of another human is the value of yourself, your own worth. That is why our greatest heros, and most cherished legends and archetypes are those for whom another human life is so precious that they will sacrifice their own life to preserve it.
So again, the value of another human life is your own worth.
Well then, what if nobody was willing to pay the amount demanded? Should the newborn child’s worth be determined solely by other people are willing to pay for its life?
Should we really reduce somebody’s worth to what other people are willing to pay?
I know no other meaning of worth, provided you take a rather broad interpretation of “pay.” Care to suggest the alternative? IMO worth only comes from two sources: one, a person estimating value in their own moral way; and two, a person estimating the value of a thing by seeing how it matches a function. The two don’t have to be independent, but they often are.
Thus, if no one feels the baby serves an amoral purpose, and no one places any value of any kind in the baby, then who would stop the murderer? And why would they?
Hmm. Well, I don’t know whether human life has any inherent value, but I think the potential of every human life definitely has plenty of value. It’s the same basic reason for “women and children first.” Potential. As pro-lifers love to say, who knows who might be the next Mother Teresa?
Or the next Jeffrey Dahmer, I know, but unlike gobear, I think that the good done ultimately outweighs the bad.
Yes. The use of the word “pay” is misguided, since it does not apply to human worth. The value of a human life can not be gauged in dollars and cents.
You didn’t suggest an alternative.
And, in my opinion, military commanders routinely weigh the value of lives in objective terms. How many casualties is the taking, or defending, this particular place worth?
That many not have been an alternative DEFINITION of “pay,” but it’s an alternative to using “pay.”
As for military commanders weighing lives in objective terms, do please remember that the ultimate goal in a just war is to enforce justice and preserve lives (as evidenced by the current action in Afghanistan). A commander may sacrifice some lives in order to prevent others from dying later on. Any war conducted for mere monetary gain is not a just war.
Well, that sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?
In what way is that begging the question? Question-begging denotes circular reasoning. Where does the circularity lie?
David said that military commanders sacrifice lives to achieve an objective. JTC said that if the war is just, then the ultimate objective is not monetary. One might question the validity of JTC’s statement (which strikes me as morally intuitive), but it’s not question-begging.
Here’s one thing that bugs me. Several people are claiming that a human life can be gauged in terms of wealth, i.e. what people are willing to pay for it. This statement was given without proof – reasonably so, IMO, since not all statements of morality require precise mathematical proof.
However, when one person proposed that the value of a human life transcends wealth, this was labelled as “begging the question.” How so? In the first place, no dint of circular reasoning is evident there. And in the second place, this is no less an appeal to moral intuition than the earlier claim.
Both statements attempt an appeal to moral intuition, so what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. FTR, I happen to believe the second appeal to be more correct.
Sorry, I meant it literally is begging for a question, not that it is an act of question-begging. It answers the question of life’s value by raising the question of the justification for taking human life… pushing it off, as it were.
We are no closer to determining what values human life by saying “Well, hey, it isn’t money.” (And apart from that I disagree, anyway)
Human worth not gagued by money?
I think that it depends on how you look at things, don’t you?
Mr Factory Worker earns 9.00 an hour putting together pieces of cloth and metal and working 12 hours a day, many times 6 days a week. (Welcome to the wonderful world of factories) His worth, to the business is 9.00 an hour that he is working. This is about all the buisness really cares about Mr. Factory worker, that he puts out as much product as he can in the time he is there.
His worth to his neighbor, whom grosses 85k a year, is as a nuissance, and would pay money to have him move to somewhere (in the neighbors mind) he belongs, like the dump. After all, Mr. Factory Worker doesn’t drive a SUV, have a 120,000 dollar house, a 67" TV in his living room complete with Surround sound, a 1200 dollar Stereo system, 2 Vcr’s and a DVD player.
Also it is situational. Take Mr. 85k a year, put him out on a battlefield with a gun, and only the knowledge and training he has now, and he would be less worth than a common grunt.
Saying a person CANNOT be judged by wealth (coin, moolah, that sort of thing) is a bit one dimensional.
Not the same thing. Here you are talking about the worth of his labor, not the worth of his person. In logic, that is known as a category error.
Again, not the same thing. You are talking about a situation where the neighbor fails to respect his worth as a human being. I daresay that most reasonable individuals would agree with that, as any ethical adult would consider Mr. 85K’s attitude to be morally abominable.
Once again, you are talking about the worth of his labor – in this case, the labor being his military service. His worth remains the same, but the worth of his labor does not.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I think it’s clear that your examples don’t address the value of his life, or his worth as a human being.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume your contention to be true. One could just as easily point out that saying “Hey, it IS about money!” doesn’t bring us any closer to an answer either.
As I said, both approaches attempt an appeal to moral intuition. One side claims that we can assign a dollar figure to human lives. Another side thinks that such a practice would be abominable, as though human beings could be bought or sold.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree that the opposite doesn’t lead us anywhere obvious either. But I’ve said my piece on where I think morality comes from. (most) Everyone else has attempted to counter specific instances of valuation without leaving a glimpse as to why that valuation is meaningful, or why human life would have instrinsic value.
"so saying that you know “God’s position” is a bit arrogant in my opinion.) "
you know if you just move the last quotation mark to right after arrogant you have my veiw on the christan god.
quote:
No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manner of thine friends or thine own were. Every man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
total bs, human life isnt sacred or valuable in any form inherantly. you earn your right to be valuable, to be sacred. anyone who cries over the death of a drug dealer/user is nuts. 6 billion people walking around and you want them ALL to live out long lives no matter what total assholes/morons/idiots/lunatics they are?
get a grip, compasion is killing evolution. human worth should (Note strongly this is my opinion and nothing more.) be based on contributions to society as a whole and not from some religeous or moral basis.
e.g. the factory worker guy makeing 9 bucks an hour. this guy is takeing home under 30k per year working his ass off and providing a reasonably valuable service. he pays his bills, taxes, and is not a threat to society.
convicted serial killer/rapist/3 time felon (in a 3 strikes youre out state) COSTS 50k-100k per year to keep alive and safe from people who want them dead. and to keep society safe from them.
does this seem even remotly sane? logical? I mean I could be wrong but I am guessing that an egraved bullet with their name on it would cost about 5 bucks.
how many prisoners do we have who are in for LIFE?
multiply that by the 50-100k it costs.
I dont have a cite for ya but I wouldnt be surprised if it topped 1billion dollars a year wasted on people who are simply better off dead.
I understand that Palestinian suicide bombers are now worth $25K to their families. That is up from a recent value of $10K.
Read The Sea Wolf by Jack London for a good debate on the value of human life.
I don’t think that proves anything. One might not cry over the drug dealer’s death, but that doesn’t mean that death is the most viable option. Certainly IMO, if there is any feasible way to prevent this person’s death and prevent him from dealing drugs, I would choose that option instead.
Besides, being “valuable” doesn’t necessarily mean that other concerns don’t apply. One might claim that the dealer’s life has value, but that this value is ultimately outweighed by the worth of his future victims. So even if we grant that we wouldn’t mourn his death, that would still be inconclusive.
Do I believe there are situations where someone’s death is required. Certainly, although such situations are extreme and absolutely aytpical. Because such situations are extreme though, I think it’s clear that taking that person’s life should not be done lightly, and should only be done when there are absolutely overriding concerns. (As in, matters such as material wealth, annoyance and mere emotional desire would not qualify.)
No category error, I just failed to emphasise my point. The point being the same as Critical1’s in that Human life is worth nothing as itself. A Vegtable on life support is worthing nothing to anybody but those that place value on him/her.
The worth of a human being is what he or she can do with that life. Be it a scientist or a factory worker, that person is only as valuable to society as to how replaceable that person is. From outside of society, on a universal scale, human life is worth nothing whatsoever, and our planet spinning out into the darkness between stars will not change the course of the galaxies.
A Human is only worth what others percieve them to be worth. I would definately place more worth on Albert Einstein’s life than some lazy slacker who sits around the house drinking beer, smoking pot and working at the local quickie mart on the night shift. Am I the final word on somebodies worth, of course not, but my view is as valid as the person who sees the slacker as the greatest guy around. And equally rudiment.
It’s all perception, If you place absolute value on one viewpoint, then yes, all human life is sacred, all animals are our ancestors, stamp collections are the ultimate hobby, and Mom definatly makes the best meatloaf in the world.
Now, when it comes to should somebody die because I want them dead and I am worth more… I would say that is another debate. About laws and morals, not worth.